For my class in Gender, Race, Class in the media, we studied some of the psychological theories behind learning and socialization. As part of our group project, we presented a research paper concerning proper techniques for helping children to be aware of negative stereotypes and how to utilize positive ones.
Jacob Rascon, a member of our group, wrote an editorial about the issues behind many children’s animated films, such as Lion King, Cinderella, and Aladdin.
I was fortunate enough to design the editorial for an 11×17 layout:
The Lion King, Disney Princesses, and Rising Above Negative Media Messages
By Jacob Rascon
Remember ‘the circle of life’ in The Lion King? What was that all about? Lions are at the top of the food chain and are therefore naturally better than all other animals—especially hyenas, who deserve their poor circumstance?
That doesn’t sound like the Disney I used to know. Remember when Princess Ariel gave up her voice? Why did she sacrifice that plus everything she’d ever known for a prince she’d never met? Not sure, but hey, she kept her looks…
This essay was written as a discussion of the existence of racial stereotypes and critical cultural theory in Star Wars. Feel free to leave me a comment. I’m open to debate and comments.
Ideologies, Connotations, and Polysemy in Star Wars: How to deal with race in space
One cannot deny the existence of dominant ideologies inherent in Star Wars. George Lucas’ study of archetypes and his world views contributed to the film.
Star Wars clearly denotes an epic science-fiction film. Many light viewers of the films probably only see it, consciously, as such. Connotatively, the film has many meanings. From the viewpoint of this paper discussing race, we see such connotations as who a hero is and who he must become. How must this hero be mentored and by whom? Star Wars also connotates the meanings of good and evil–that there are even specific colors that signify good and evil: white and black. The film also messages about the existence of minorities, or aliens—how they are viewed and what their roles are as either dangerous encounters in our hero’s journey or as assistants in helping our hero succeed.
In the original star wars films minorities have very sparse roles. The dominant roles are taken by Caucasians: Luke, Han Solo, Obi Wan Kenobi, Leia, and Darth Vader. Luke is mentored by Obi Wan, who acts as a patriarchal figure. Obi Wan has great wisdom, greater than that of Darth Vader and Luke learns to trust Obi Wan.
The dominant reading from the Star Wars saga speaks of ethical rebellion—that one must stand against immoral rule. Luke epitomizes the archetypal hero who goes from being an ignorant farm boy to a wise and skilled warrior for good. In the story, he and the Rebels stand against all odds in their fight for truth and freedom. Because they fight for good, they ultimately triumph. This notion of the oppressed revolutionizing is the backbone of early American thought.
Another dominant reading is that basic Jedi principles of self-control, consistent training, and a motivation for good, are the preferred principles that can make one become “good” and a hero.
As all artifacts contain potentially infinite interpretations, Star Wars is no different. Synchronic polysemy exists as different audiences view the film. Those of Christian backgrounds idolize the righteous qualities of the Jedi and the Rebels. Protestant faiths apply the protestant, rebellious for good nature of the film to their own faiths. Conversely, those of eastern religions might see the films as mirrors of buddhism, hinduism, and shinto. The spiritualism of some of these eastern religions appear in Star Wars, such as the spirits of the past who frequently visit Luke to offer him counsel. There is no supreme being in Star Wars. Those who die are melded into the Force, which acts as an energy field guiding and moving through all life.
Those of other races will also view the films differently. Anyone who is a minority might see a dominant oppression that exists in the films as well as in society. Minority racial groups will develop resistant readings of Star Wars:
- One can start in a lowly state and achieve greatness only if that person is a white male. Luke becomes the greatest Jedi master in the galaxy while any minority groups, such as aliens and droids retain their roles as supporters of the hero.
- It is implied that minority groups are unintelligent, misfits of society, and criminals. For example, Jabba’s lair represents the ghettos of the Star Wars world. His lair, prinicipally made up of aliens, is filled with criminals running from the law, prostitutes, and drug dealers. Another example is the signification of the noble savage in the ewoks. These side-role characters are technologically and religiously primitive and their principal purpose in the film is to suppor the main characters.
- In the scheme of power structures, “whiteness” is superior to all other cultures. This is apparent in the differences between the dark side and good side of the force. Sith Lords are always dressed in black. Any scenes set inside the imperial vessels use primarily dark grays while the Rebel vessels are white. This black vs. white evidence is most notable by Darth Vadar. Vadar, who dresses in black, has an African-American voice (James Earl Jones). Only at the end when he becomes “good” and Luke removes his mask, do we see his true appearance as a white male.
Note: It is safe to assume that supposed elements of racism in Star Wars were not deliberate on the part of George Lucas. However, our environment affects what we produce. In this way, the surrounding culture during the 1970’s dominated the dominant ideologies in Star Wars.
While I was in a meeting this morning, @danbischoff related some very wise counsel. He said he’d been thinking about it when he arose for the day. He spoke of the 3 most important things to do in the morning in order to start the day off right and make it a good day:
- Wake up naturally or to music: If you practice going to bed and waking up at a set time consistently, you’ll be able to wake up naturally
- Don’t look in the mirror: When you look at yourself in the mirror, most likely you’ll think you’re ugly. Just don’t let that kind of negativity in by not looking in the mirror.
- Make your first correspondence positive: Whether it’s your spouse, roommate, or a driver on the road, make sure you smile and say something nice.
This lecture really stood out to me. Perhaps my time perspective differs greatly from others.
Professor Phillip Zimbardo talks about different time perspectives (there are 6 different ones): Positive and Negative Past, Present Hedonistic, Future oriented, etc.
This is Machiavelli
He wrote a book called The Prince
In the book, he tells rulers how to maintain stability and hold power
Many rulers have followed his agenda
Now it’s common to refer to the devil as ‘Old Nick’
Machiavelli’s first name: Niccolo
Below you’ll find a vector image of Machiavelli, I created. Move the transparent images, below, over this image of Machiavelli to transform his face into another person. Can you guess the people I’ve turned him into?
Well, you probably guessed it right: Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin.
These despots all learned from Machiavelli and utilized some of his principles in their rule. Napoleon wrote extensive notes about The Prince. Hitler was affected by Mussolini, who read and followed Machiavelli’s The Prince. And Stalin kept a copy of The Prince on his nightstand.
For this project, I created a framed image of Machiavelli with transferable Plexiglas sheets showing the other faces.
Although he is not predominantly famed, Roger Williams can readily be considered the man who innovated the great disconnect between the state and the church. Jefferson and Madison are the American founders who receive the greatest credit for a strict separation of church and state in the new US government, however, their contributions were not necessarily original. Williams initiated a “cause of conscience” (1867, p. 3) that has permeated American hearts since his time. It is the object of this work to show Williams’ indirect influence on the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
It is quite obvious that Jefferson was deeply religious over at least one moral particular—namely that “all men are created equal” (Declaration of Independence, ¶2). Thus his views on the church involvement in government were reflected to promote religious freedom. One of his most famous letters on the subject is his reply to Danbury Baptists at the beginning of his administration. He said that the Establishment Clause in the first amendment of the Constitution (an amendment developed by Madison), effectively built “a wall of eternal separation between Church & State” (1802). The origination of this metaphor actually emerges from Roger Williams over a century earlier.
Williams came to America after witnessing persecution against his own teacher by the Church of England. Upon arriving in the Massachusetts Bay colony Williams was accepted as assistant Pastor in the Puritan church in Salem. It was a good step and an open environment for Williams to affect change among a somewhat intolerant religious community.
Although the Puritans and Separatists had deserted to America on the grounds of religious freedom they still had not purged themselves of inherited religious culture and ideals of the European faiths. Government and religion were deeply connected in Britain and Europe. For centuries, kings ruled over England claiming divine royal leadership. The Puritans, seeking for religious tolerance, came to America to merely “purify” the Church of England. Although they claimed a disconnection between state government and the church, there were still highly religious ideals that affected the community and certain legislative measures that affected the church. For example, all citizens were required to attend church and pay taxes that benefited the church. Government officials were to make oaths with God concerning their office. These close connections between government and religion were a few of the items that Williams found it his duty to preach against. Consequently, it was local legislation that banished Pastor Williams from the community.
Roger Williams can be conveniently considered “a nonconformist in a land of nonconformists” (Moore, 1965, pp. 58-59). Competing with the Puritan John Cotton on a principle of free conscience, Williams wrote some influential papers that almost mirror writings of Locke, Madison and, most importantly, Jefferson. It was in “Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered” that Williams penned the original metaphor of a wall of separation:
And that when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness. (Levy, 1986, p. 184)
Historians speculate on the different meanings that Jefferson and Williams had intended to portray with the metaphor. Both men called for a wall to protect both the state from the church as well as the church from the state. Williams noticed, in the Puritan community, the danger of a church imposing legislation among citizens, yet he was more concerned with a government that imposed upon the church. Jefferson was concerned with the danger of a church imposing on the government. This is where Jefferson and Williams differed about the metaphor. For example, Jefferson was strictly against any religious national holiday, whereas Williams, being highly religious, was hypocritical in his intolerance of the “unorthodox” practices of the Quakers that had settled in Providence.
Despite these differences, the writings of Jefferson and Williams are deeply similar. Jefferson, in his letter to the Baptists noted that “religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship” (1802). Similarly, Williams stated that “man hath not power to make laws to bind conscience” (1867). Roger Williams also employed Jefferson’s ideal that “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions” (1802). Williams did not enforce obedience to the first four laws of the Ten Commandments or “the first table” (Moore, 1965, p. 62). These were commandments such as devotion and worship that dealt with personal opinions. Conversely, the “second table” of commandments that dealt with criminal actions such as stealing or committing adultery were enforced (Moore, 1965, p. 62-63).
Notwithstanding the many similarities between the two men, scholars agree that Jefferson was most likely not familiar with the writings of Roger Williams. At the time of the American founding in the late 1700’s, the name Roger Williams was not well-liked. He was remembered as an individual who was a radical that had personally defied the Puritan colony. Isaac Backus, one of the leading Baptist supporters of religious freedom, wrote an entire work that nearly copied the ideas of Williams; the work, however, never fully credited Williams (Moore, 1965, pp. 70-71). William Miller wrote, “The crotchety, disorganized, and insistently Christian writings of Roger Williams were not the sort of thing Thomas Jefferson was likely to read, but John Locke clearly had read them” (1985, p. 173). It is also known that Jefferson clearly read Locke’s writings on the natural rights of man.
Just six years after Williams’ death, John Locke published “A Letter Concerning Toleration” (1689). The letter is full of text that follows the ideals that Roger Williams had left behind. The subject of a free conscience was modeled by Locke: “Men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences” (1689, ¶41). Locke argued for the natural rights of man. He explains in much detail the dangerous consequences of a government such as Massachusetts and those in Britain that infringed upon the natural rights of worship. He was right on with Williams. Nevertheless, there are some differences in the voice of the two men. Williams wrote from a religious viewpoint rather than political one. Locke wrote to a political audience that was not as inclined towards faith as was Williams’ audience. Leroy Miller designates Williams’ philosophy as “Let God be God!” while Locke’s as “Make way for Man!” (1965, p. 66).
Williams held two distinct roles. While (1) seeking to preach salvation, he acted as a religious leader. While (2) opting for religious liberty, he acted as a political leader. The roles were very different and the fact that he played both of them is ironic, seeing that his ideal world was a separation between the political and the religious. His motives were ultimately religious. Brilliance led him to discover that his preaching of salvation was in vain if religious liberty was not realized. He asked “Can the sword of steel or arme of flesh make men faithful or loyal to God? Faith proceeds alone from the Father of Lights.” (Moore, 1965, p. 64).
Jefferson may not have realized the importance that Roger Williams played on the early colonization of America. Jefferson also may not have known that his readings of John Locke were filled with the ideals of Williams. However, Jefferson did know that the spirit of America—liberty—was to be protected with all measures even if it meant erecting a “wall of separation” between church and state. The act of building this wall had already been started over 100 years earlier, brick by brick, by the revolutionary, Roger Williams.
Davis, D.H. (1999). The enduring legacy of Roger Williams: consulting America’s first separationist on today’s pressing church-state controversies. Journal of Church & State, 41(2) 201-213. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://web.ebscohost.com.
Jefferson, T. (1802). Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists: The draft and recently discovered text. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html
Levy, L.W. (1986). The establishment clause: Religion and the first amendment. New York:Macmillan Publishing Co.
Locke, J. (1689). A letter concerning toleration. (W. Popple, Trans.). Retrieved March 28, 2007, from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke-t/locke_toleration.html
Miller, W.L. (1985). The first liberty: religion and the American Republic. New York:Knopf.
Moore L. (1965). Religious liberty: Roger Williams and revolutionary era. Church History, 34(1), 57-76. Retrieved March 26, 2007, from JSTOR database.
Williams, R., & Caldwell, S.L. (1867). The bloudy tenent of persecution. Publications of the Narragansett Club. (p. 3) Providence, RI:Stanford University Retrieved March 28, 2007, from http://books.google.com.
I have seen monumental suffering housed in women’s bodies. I have seen teenage girls watch their mothers starve, deny and hate themselves, call their distorted ideas about food “will power.” I have seen these mothers teach this language to their daughters, usually unintentionally. I have seen vomit in toilets across America. . . I have seen the smartest college students in the world spend the majority of their days thinking about calories. I have seen shame, loads and loads of it, piled so high that women climb on top and reign there.
-Courtney E. Martin, The Famine Mystique
Glamour plays a pretentious role in the famine mystique. At first glance, the website displays perpetuations of the mystique by including the most important features in the navigation links: fashion; beauty; sex, love & life; weddings; health & fitness; body by Glamour. None of these words actually signify the quest for true depth and meaning in womanhood. The title of the publication, Glamour, stands next to words like allurement, animal magnetism, beauty, and attraction.
Innately, humans strive for betterment. As Martin noted, media have defined “betterment” in such unrealistic terms that “you feel bad.” Glamour is no exception. Some of the headlines read “Model Beauty Tricks We All Should Know” and “50 Most Glamorous Women of 2010.” These headlines might support a woman’s notion that she isn’t up to speed on her image if she doesn’t know some beauty tricks and stars. Furthermore, blog headlines like “For $2,000, These Jeans Better Lose Five Pounds For Me” only relate the fact that thinness should be highly important as it seems to be the main purpose for spending $2,000 on a pair of jeans.
But how does Glamour actually make one feel bad? And, is feeling bad necessarily a bad thing? Scripture passages can definitely make one feel bad, especially if one isn’t living up to the standard. Quoting “love one another” after being cut-off by a crazy driver doesn’t always calm the nerves. Motivational books can also make people feel bad if they aren’t following the positive principles contained therein.
However, feeling bad is necessary for one to change. That’s why your conscience is so good at it—as well as media and advertising. If you feel bad about your image, you might try a new diet pill or go to the gym. You also might pick up a copy of Glamour, hoping to find the latest tips to make yourself become more attractive. Advertisers love to make people feel bad in hopes of increased sales.
But if feeling bad is a natural motive for change, why does Martin condemn magazines like Glamour and Cosmopolitan? Perhaps, it is the end result rather than the means that scares her. Martin claims, as do many social scientists, that Bulimia and Anorexia Nervosa stem from media’s portrayal of beauty and attractiveness. The unrealistic expectations that women set out to achieve become unattainable and consequently, women begin to hate themselves even more. Self-hatred and subsequent eating disorders of more than 7 million women are not the most lovely outcomes of image-loving media. Unfortunately, Glamour editors and board members don’t think about the larger consequences of the material they publish. Rather, they hope to garner larger readership and increased advertising revenue.
I don’t mean to intentionally put a plug for Christianity, but I’m grateful to believe that perfection isn’t acquired by our personal efforts. A God who motivates change but never really offers the attainment of perfection is no God of mine. As life will teach us, we cannot achieve perfection in any form whether that’s personal righteousness or outward beauty. America’s top model, won’t be at the top next year and Angelina Jolie will eventually grow old and wrinkly. But, fortunately, the Christ who said, “Be ye therefore perfect,” also said, “Take my yoke upon you… For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
In the following post, I took a look at “Multitasking State of Mind,” an article by Joanne Cavanaugh Simpson. I’ve responded with a look at my own life. In a nutshell, I agree and sympathize with Simpson’s thoughts.
I just checked twitter and three email accounts. I also skimmed a few blog posts and read some tweets. Originally, I sat down at the computer to write this essay, but I’ve just procrastinated for a few minutes in my social media circles. Pondering now, I think my time could have been better spent and, for the record, I’ve closed my browser and put away my phone.
Am I caught up in the multitasking, digital age? In comparison with some of my peers, I’ve just skimmed the surface. I don’t have an iPhone and most of my social profiles were created for my job at an internet marketing firm. Yet, I still feel the effects of my heavy digital media use and lack of face-to-face socializing.
To me, the effects are largely negative. Rather than seizing the moment and talking to a professor, I shy away thinking I’ll just send a quick email. Rather than phoning friends, I’ll send a quick chat on Facebook. And frequently, I find myself on Hulu, Youtube, Digg, and many other online diversions while I should be utilizing my time in other, more “productive” avenues.
Two years ago, I hailed digital connections as innovative and the wave of the future. I saw how much time could be saved by texting or chatting online. I also applied the labels of “old-fashioned” to those people who denounced social media for its de-socializing effects.
As I watch my classmates meander on the web with laptops and smart phones, I somehow believe these students aren’t consciously choosing the multitasking lifestyle. Elements of a media-driven culture all play into the lives of students. Most of us were raised with the internet and the cell phone. Culturally, we’ve been raised to admire those with more innovative tech gadgets.
We also witness a great deal more interesting ideas, artwork, and cultures than our parents’ generation. Perhaps we let this constant exposure of interesting things others are doing invigorate our desires to do more and be more. Multitasking with digital technology is a way to do more and still stay connected socially.
Although mass media has been around for generations, new social media allows us have our own mass media community. We idolize ourselves in our “friend” and “follower” circles much like mainstream media idolizes a current pop star. In effect, we must be our own spokesperson, agent, and PR manager, while still doing regular tasks of day-to-day life like working and studying.
As I make plans to wean off social media an opposing thought comes to mind: “What if I miss something?” Students will have to decide on this tradeoff if they really want to add some “space in the mind.”
- Interesting study surrounding this issue.
As a web developer, I occasionally get feedback from clients that their website is “broken”. Usually, the client is using Internet Explorer 6 (or one case of the old AOL browser). Consequently, I’ve had to go out of my way, adding css hacks or html commenting hacks to make the code fit for IE6. Many feelings of rage have passed through my heart as I’ve dealt with IE6 problems. Fortunately, to my great relief, my employer has decided to leave IE6 off of our UI testing list.
As of today, I’m joining the “Bring down IE6” coup. IE6 is a poor excuse for a browser.
In order to help IE6 users to appreciate better browsers use code like this:
<!–[if lt IE 7]>
<div id=”ie6Warning”>
<h2>Time to upgrade your browser</h2>
<p>If you’re reading this, you’re surfing using Internet Explorer 6, an eight-year-old browser that cannot cope with the demands of the modern internet. For the best web experience, we strongly recommend upgrading to <a href=”http://www.getfirefox.com/”>Firefox</a>, <a href=”http://www.opera.com/”>Opera</a>, <a href=”http://www.apple.com/safari/”>Safari</a>, <a href=”http://www.google.com/chrome”>Google Chrome</a>, or a more recent version of <a href=”http://www.microsoft.com/windows/downloads/ie/getitnow.mspx”>Internet Explorer</a>.</p>
</div>
<![endif]–>
The Edge of Darkness, a gripping film starring Mel Gibson, uses a multi-genre oriented approach in its trailer. Although I’ve not seen the film, the trailer entertains my interest by sucking me into three separate genres using many attempts at iconography, repetition, equations and hyperbole. Whether or not the actual film meets these different genres is not involved in the discussion. What’s of interest is how the trailer makes these genre statements and why they chose to define the movie through the rhetoric of genre.
In the first 30 seconds of the trailer, we may assume that this is a drama. We see a father reminiscing his years of rearing his daughter and then she returns from her grown up life for a visit. We suspect that this film will be about the relationship between the parent and child. The music and imagery reflect the iconography of a complex/endearing drama specifically about relationships. As Lisa Kernan stated in Trailer Rhetoric, we see an assertion of “an equation … between the spectator’s experience and the characters’ experiences.”
The headlines appear, “Some memories never fade” and “Some feelings never change” further defining the film with generalization—using emotion as a major feature of a drama. However, in a few one-second shots, the trailer quickly modifies its rhetoric towards a detective genre. The father, played by Mel Gibson is suddenly thrown into a crime investigation for the shooting of his daughter. Again, icons of the classic detective genre are shown with a close-up shot of an officer’s gun holster and a crowd of police cars surrounding the home of the crime scene.
However, as the trailer proceeds, the film offsets itself from the classic detective genre and into the likes of a riveting thriller as is noted also by the title of the film, Edge of Darkness. Headlines “Some secrets … take us to the edge” appears and we are whisked away into continuous shots of conspiracy conversations, dark alley scenes, and violent, close calls with death. The headlines change color to red, apart from the earlier drama-oriented blue headlines. We also see flashed images of the daughter with an eerie likeness to the trailers of horror films such as The Forgotten, and The Others. Frequent uses of a blacked screen utilize repetition and emphasize darkness in its physical and psychological manifestations.
The trailer clearly makes a stab using rhetoric to categorize the film into the three genres: drama, detective mystery, and horror. Perhaps the producers were trying to market the film to three separate and segmented audiences. But this generalization into genres allows for a deeper analysis. Historically, these genres have been widely used and perpetuated by Hollywood and millions of movie-goers. While the technology and style of movie trailers has become more sophisticated, we can still connect dots of genre rhetoric.
Conversely, in its very effort to invoke three different genres, the film differentiates itself from any one of those genres. Although the thriller aspect of the film is most ingrained in our minds, we are jarred by the quick transition from one genre to the next. Although the trailer connected the “genre-dots” it still did not take the genre stand—and in doing so, hoped to stand out and differentiate itself.
Recent Comments